though in a weird way, it may have paved the way for roberts' obamacare vote in that he was trying to undo some of the damage the court has inflicted upon itself in the 2000s with bush v. gore, heller and citizens united.

FlashHarry:though in a weird way, it may have paved the way for roberts' obamacare vote in that he was trying to undo some of the damage the court has inflicted upon itself in the 2000s with bush v. gore, heller and citizens united.

And people think I say dumb shiat

Well, I do, and most of the time it is dumber than that statement, but here we are.

It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that. Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won. There really is no other way to spin that. Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

She and any other Supreme Court justices responsible for the verdicts in Bush v. Gore or Citizens United are fully deserving of a loud and hearty "f*ck you" from anybody who comes in contact with them.

EyeballKid:She and any other Supreme Court justices responsible for the verdicts in Bush v. Gore or Citizens United are fully deserving of a loud and hearty "f*ck you" from anybody who comes in contact with them.

Well, I do, and most of the time it is dumber than that statement, but here we are.

really? i thought it was fairly well understood that roberts is concerned for the reputation of his (and rehnquist's) court, and that he realizes that bush v. gore and certainly citizens united are stains upon it that rival dred scott. and that this may have driven his decision on the ACA.

you can debate that possibility (which i'd love to see), but dismissing it as "dumb shiat" is rather facile, don't you think?

Well, I do, and most of the time it is dumber than that statement, but here we are.

really? i thought it was fairly well understood that roberts is concerned for the reputation of his (and rehnquist's) court, and that he realizes that bush v. gore and certainly citizens united are stains upon it that rival dred scott. and that this may have driven his decision on the ACA.

you can debate that possibility (which i'd love to see), but dismissing it as "dumb shiat" is rather facile, don't you think?

Well, I do, and most of the time it is dumber than that statement, but here we are.

really? i thought it was fairly well understood that roberts is concerned for the reputation of his (and rehnquist's) court, and that he realizes that bush v. gore and certainly citizens united are stains upon it that rival dred scott. and that this may have driven his decision on the ACA.

you can debate that possibility (which i'd love to see), but dismissing it as "dumb shiat" is rather facile, don't you think?

Speculation isnt fact

Wow I nominate myself for the "Ric Romero quote of the year" candidate

i never said that it was. however, my speculation was rooted in more than "dumb shiat." and it was hardly something i pulled out of my ass, either; it was certainly discussed in the media after the ACA decision last year.

FlashHarry:though in a weird way, it may have paved the way for roberts' obamacare vote in that he was trying to undo some of the damage the court has inflicted upon itself in the 2000s with bush v. gore, heller and citizens united.

I'm sorry. Obamacare is not the glorious piece of legislation or the great court decision everyone makes it out to be. Once the public option was taken out, it became a crapshoot of a bill that lost all it's teeth. Obamacare is/was a great give away to insurance companies though, so there's that!

nekom:It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that. Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won. There really is no other way to spin that. Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Didn't some journalist group do a full recount and eventually found Gore won, albeit by a hundred votes or so?

FarkedOver:FlashHarry: though in a weird way, it may have paved the way for roberts' obamacare vote in that he was trying to undo some of the damage the court has inflicted upon itself in the 2000s with bush v. gore, heller and citizens united.

I'm sorry. Obamacare is not the glorious piece of legislation or the great court decision everyone makes it out to be. Once the public option was taken out, it became a crapshoot of a bill that lost all it's teeth. Obamacare is/was a great give away to insurance companies though, so there's that!

But everybody's premiums will go down, just like they did with mandatory car insurance

nekom:It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that. Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won. There really is no other way to spin that. Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Not according to an independent survey conducted the following year. Gore won under 4 different criteria if the entire state was recounted. If Gore wore have gotten his selective recounts of just a few counties, he would have lost. The Supreme Court probably should have demanded a full recount of the entire state or just stayed out of it.

Target Builder:nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that. Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won. There really is no other way to spin that. Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Didn't some journalist group do a full recount and eventually found Gore won, albeit by a hundred votes or so?

Lumpmoose:nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that. Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won. There really is no other way to spin that. Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Not according to an independent survey conducted the following year. Gore won under 4 different criteria if the entire state was recounted. If Gore wore have gotten his selective recounts of just a few counties, he would have lost. The Supreme Court probably should have demanded a full recount of the entire state or just stayed out of it.

IIRC, in the 7-2 portion of the opinion (yes, there were two issues, 5-4 and 7-2 in favor of Bush), they found the hand-selection of counties to recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but did not order a recount one way or the other, noting it did not know if there was time to do so under Florida election law. Gore's team screwed themselves out of that one by hand-picking counties.

Nabb1:Lumpmoose: nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that. Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won. There really is no other way to spin that. Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Not according to an independent survey conducted the following year. Gore won under 4 different criteria if the entire state was recounted. If Gore wore have gotten his selective recounts of just a few counties, he would have lost. The Supreme Court probably should have demanded a full recount of the entire state or just stayed out of it.

IIRC, in the 7-2 portion of the opinion (yes, there were two issues, 5-4 and 7-2 in favor of Bush), they found the hand-selection of counties to recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but did not order a recount one way or the other, noting it did not know if there was time to do so under Florida election law. Gore's team screwed themselves out of that one by hand-picking counties.

IIRC there was no mechanism in Florida law to get a statewide recount, especially with Katherine Harris being so helpful and all.

Also IIRC the Gore team was a few out of state lawyers working out of a strip mall since Jeb Bush pressured every law firm in the state to stay away from Gore or not get any state business.

Cletus C.:Target Builder: nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that. Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won. There really is no other way to spin that. Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Didn't some journalist group do a full recount and eventually found Gore won, albeit by a hundred votes or so?

In one scenario, while in others Bush would have won.

That article has rather bizarre wording. While it's true that most of the likely scenarios that were in play at the time would have led to a Bush victory, that's because a full state recount was unlikely. Saying a full recount is only "one scenario" is ridiculous. It's an election. It should be conducted properly and recounted if necessary.

Recounts can work. We did it in Minnesota. But we have good election laws and strong, honest Secretary of State. Florida had neither at the time (do they now?). But that doesn't mean Gore didn't get more votes and that SCOTUS didn't botch it up.

Cletus C.:Target Builder: nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that. Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won. There really is no other way to spin that. Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Didn't some journalist group do a full recount and eventually found Gore won, albeit by a hundred votes or so?

In one scenario, while in others Bush would have won.

The point is that we will really never know the truth because the Supreme Court decided it for them.

Pincy:Cletus C.: Target Builder: nekom: It doesn't really make much difference, as far as I've seen no one has ever been able to even manufacture a Gore victory in Florida, even those with a mind set to do just that. Under the system in place at the time, and yes the SCOTUS was part of that system, Bush won. There really is no other way to spin that. Now if you want to argue that the electoral college is stupid, I fully agree with that, but it IS what we have, for some reason.

Didn't some journalist group do a full recount and eventually found Gore won, albeit by a hundred votes or so?

In one scenario, while in others Bush would have won.

The point is that we will really never know the truth because the Supreme Court decided it for them.

That's the conclusion. It was so close either side had the opening to manipulate the results to their liking.

A team that should have won, but lost because of one bad call, never deserved to win in the first place. It's the fault of the team for putting themselves so close to the brink of failure in the beginning. What I am saying is that if Clinton had not splooged all over that dress, the war in Iraq would never had happened and many less people would have died in the aftermath of Katrina.

acefox1:Also IIRC the Gore team was a few out of state lawyers working out of a strip mall since Jeb Bush pressured every law firm in the state to stay away from Gore or not get any state business.

"A few"? I remember that free-for-all. There were HUNDREDS of lawyers working for both campaigns and perhaps even thousands more working on amicus briefs. Believe me - no one got the short shrift on representation in that case.

Nabb1:IIRC, in the 7-2 portion of the opinion (yes, there were two issues, 5-4 and 7-2 in favor of Bush), they found the hand-selection of counties to recount violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, but did not order a recount one way or the other, noting it did not know if there was time to do so under Florida election law. Gore's team screwed themselves out of that one by hand-picking counties.

acefox1:IIRC there was no mechanism in Florida law to get a statewide recount, especially with Katherine Harris being so helpful and all.

Also IIRC the Gore team was a few out of state lawyers working out of a strip mall since Jeb Bush pressured every law firm in the state to stay away from Gore or not get any state business.

I have no delusions that a full recount was likely or that Gore didn't screw the pooch in the aftermath. Could the Supreme Court have demanded a full recount and set things right? I don't know. I have to think if they could have and did, their reputation wouldn't have become as tarnished as O'Connor fears.

The big problem is, what do you do when the state election board is as bad as Florida's and the votes are under contest? IIRC, although I forget which one now, there was another Presidential election that had a dispute and Congress decided to handle it by appointing a commission to look into it and make a ruling. The commission had 6 Republicans and 5 Democrats, the ruling was a 6-5 voting. Surprise. So with Bush v Gore we didn't go down at that road, since in theory at least the court is nonpartisan or at least pretends to be nonpartisan (except for Scalia).

It's all very well and good if the federal government can just slap the state upside the head and say "Recoun the votes, assholes", but when the state election board is a tire fire we don't really have a good process.

Meh. The decision was sound - it just reiterated the fact that an American citizen has no constitutional right to vote for the President of the United States. The states make the rules about how they want to select the makeup of the electoral college, and the rules in Florida set forth a vote and a specific recount procedure to be followed. These additional recounts (particularly in a county by county basis) were not codified in state law and therefore didn't have to be done for the state to certify the results.

In other words, you have no right to reasonably expect your vote to actually count for anything, the state just uses the "accurate enough" litmus test and that's that. Most of the time they're directionally right at best. Don't like it? Get a constitutional amendment. Until then, be glad that you even have the ability to enter a nominal but ultimately unverifiable vote for president at all, in the old days the state legislatures made that decision for you (and they well should consider returning to that model, given the idiocy of most Americans. But that's a topic for another day).

Let me address this with on caveat. I don't think it would have mattered who won. That being said, some of that decision was complete garbage. The fact that it was stated that it could not be used in precedent ever again is one glaring thing in the decision that shows you what a kangaroo court the SC is.